Important Point – Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter.

M.K. Hanjura, J.

Writ petitions on hand, having the akin cause of action, similar set of the facts urged, generic gravamen groused, resemblance in the reliefs supplicated and encompasses the benefits attached to the service and also punishment inflicted concerning one individual, have been, thus, clubbed together to forestall multiple, varied and inconsistent conclusions.

2. The fascicule of facts, necessitous and germane to comprehend the backdrop of the present writ petitions, based whereupon a case has been set in motion and the present legal process built, has its genesis and origin to the envisioning of the claim of the petitioner that have direct ramification on the service benefits and the career of the petitioner and also the grant of sanction for his prosecution, has ended in melancholy and uncertainty. The writ petitions are, having said so, taken ad seriatim.

SWP No.859/2015

3. The facts, that emerge from the bird’s eye view of the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition on hand, are that the General Administration Department (GAD) in the year 2012, sought grant of the sanction from the Government of India, to prosecute the petitioner, that the petitioner challenged in a writ petition, bearing SWP no.371/2012, in which this Court vide order dated 5th April 2012, directed maintaining of the status quo. It also comes to fore that the Government of India vide letter dated 19th June 2012 (Annexure P-21 to writ petition), declined granting the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. However, the State Government, as contended by the petitioner, did not furnish the actual position vis-à-vis the petitioner to the Government of India and as a consequence of which, the Government of India vide Order no.15011/01/2012-AVU-(i) dated 19th February 2013 (Annexure P-22 to writ petition) granted the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. This forced the petitioner to throw challenge to the aforesaid sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, in a writ petition, diarised and registered as SWP no.323/2013. Besides that, the petitioner also filed a contempt petition against the erring officers. The petitioner claims that the Central Government, issued an Order on 10.05.2013, keeping in abeyance the sanction granted against the petitioner. In the said order, the Government of India is said to have admitted that because of the lack of the proper information by the State Government, the sanction was granted. The said sanction, according to the petitioner, therefore, did not exist and is non-est in the eye of law. The official respondents thereafter filed an application before this Court seeking vacation of the interim direction and both the matters were clubbed together and argued, and writ petition was admitted.It is averred that the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was granted illegally in violation of the orders of this Court, which was subsequently kept in abeyance and thus same does not exist in the eye of law. And resultantly no criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner in any court of law and the petitioner has been held to be entitled to the same treatment in the departmental inquiry as was given to the IFS officers involved in the said FIR, who had supervisory role, like the petitioner. It is claimed that after conducting the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was granted three promotions owing to his excellent service record. It is contended that the petitioner was promoted to post of the Conservator vide order dated 28.10.2010 and on the basis of his seniority and excellent service record, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Chief Conservator of Forests (Super Time Scale 2nd ) for which purpose the process is going on, but unfortunately the Selection Committee has not considered the case of the petitioner under the pretext that the above referred to FIRs are pending against him and thus have decided to apply the sealed cover procedure against him when at this stage the pe